Download 1.3 Verb-based nominalizations

ŠIAULIAI UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH PHILOLOGY
SEMANTIC AND STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF VERB-BASED
NOMINALIZATIONS IN SCIENCE POPULAR TEXTS
BACHELOR THESIS
Research Adviser: Assoc. Prof. Dr. S. Sušinskienė
Student: Elvyra Arlauskaitė
Šiauliai, 2013
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 3
I. THEORETICAL REVIEW OF NOMINALIZATION ...................................................... 5
1.1 The concept of nominalization..................................................................................... 5
1.2 Nominalization as the form of grammatical metaphor ................................................ 8
1.3 Verb-based nominalizations ....................................................................................... 10
II. COHESION AND COHERENCE ................................................................................... 13
2.1 Nominalization as a lexico-grammatical cohesive device in science popular texts .. 14
III.
THE USAGE OF VERB-BASED NOMINALIZATIONS IN SCIENCE POPULAR
TEXTS ...................................................................................................................................... 17
3.1 Methodological considerations .................................................................................. 17
3.2 Material suffixes ........................................................................................................ 18
3.2.1 Suffixes -ance/-ence ................................................................................................ 18
3.2.2 Suffix -ery ................................................................................................................ 18
3.2.3 Suffix -ing ................................................................................................................ 18
3.2.4 Suffixes -ion/-sion/-tion/-ation ................................................................................ 19
3.2.5 Suffix -ment ............................................................................................................. 20
3.2.6 Suffix -sis................................................................................................................. 21
3.2.7 Suffix -th .................................................................................................................. 22
3.2.8 Suffix -ure ................................................................................................................ 22
3.2.9 Zero derivation ........................................................................................................ 23
3.3 Material nominalizations ........................................................................................... 24
3.3.1
The semantic features of material nominalizations ............................................ 25
3.3.2
The structural features of material nominalizations ........................................... 27
3.4 Happening nominalizations ....................................................................................... 29
3.4.1
The semantic features of happening nominalizations......................................... 30
3.4.2
The structural features of happening nominalizations ........................................ 31
3.5 Mental nominalizations.............................................................................................. 33
3.5.1
The semantic features of mental nominalizations .............................................. 33
3.5.2
The structural features of mental nominalizations ............................................. 35
3.6 Verbal nominalizations .............................................................................................. 36
3.6.1
The semantic features of verbal nominalizations ............................................... 37
3.6.2
The structural features of verbal nominalizations .............................................. 38
3.7 Relational nominalizations ........................................................................................ 39
3.7.1
The semantic features of relational nominalizations .......................................... 40
3.7.2
The structural features of relational nominalizations ......................................... 40
3.8 Existential nominalizations ........................................................................................ 40
3.8.1
The semantic features of existential nominalizations ......................................... 41
3.8.2
The structural features of existential nominalizations ........................................ 41
CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 43
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 45
SOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 48
2
INTRODUCTION
Language is a unique device which helps not just to fulfil the need of communication,
but also to gain and express knowledge. Many linguists such as Halliday and Hassan (1976),
Beaugrande and Dressler (1981), Valeika (1985), Swales (1990), Downing and Locke (1992),
Martin (1992), and others have studied and analysed different types of discourse in order to
understand how language varies. However, language is such a complex system due to the
multiple choices of creating and transforming words that sometimes it is difficult to define
what transformation was used to create one or another word. Here we come with a language
phenomenon called nominalization. According to MacArthur (1992:702) this phenomenon
defines, “the process or result of forming a noun from a word belonging to another word
class”. It could be generally said that nominalization is an operation of creating nouns by
using words from other word classes, e.g. from verbs1, adjectives and other nouns.
Writers use nominalizations in popular scientific discourses because nominalizations are
one of language economy devices which allow expressing an idea concisely. The purpose of
science popular texts is to attract the readers by providing interesting and brief information. In
order to accomplish this purpose, writers apply nominalizations, especially verb-based
nominalizations, which help to compress the text.
The object of the present paper is the semantic and structural features of verb-based
nominalizations which play an important role as being lexico-grammatical cohesive device in
science popular texts.
The aim of this research paper is to analyse semantic and structural features of the verbbased nominalizations in science popular texts.
To achieve this aim the following objectives have been raised:
1. To present the theoretical material concerning the features of nominalization.
2. To discuss cohesion and coherence because nominalizations play an important role as
being lexico-grammatical cohesive device in science popular texts.
3. To analyse the usage of verb-based nominalizations in science popular texts and to
interpret their semantic and structural features.
The research methods used in the present study are the following:
1. The descriptive-theoretical literary analysis was used to review various issues
concerning nominalization, cohesion and coherence.
1
In this research paper only verb-based nominalizations will be discussed in depth.
3
2. The descriptive-analytical method was applied to examine and interpret verb-based
nominalizations and their semantic and structural features.
3. The statistical method enabled to systemize and generalize the research results.
The research material and the scope:
Popular science texts concerning the topic of global warming were taken from the
online English magazine Popular science (see the website http://www.popsci.com/). 700
examples of verb-based nominalizations were drawn and examined from 35 articles covering
the period from January 8, 2012 to March 27, 2013.
The relevance and novelty of the research:
Nowadays, more linguists pay attention to the phenomenon of nominalization. The
importance of nominalization has been studied by Halliday and Hassan (1976), Beaugrande
and Dressler (1981), Valeika (1985), Swales (1990), Downing and Locke (1992), Sušinskienė
(2006, 2008, 2010, 2012) in different point of views. While Halliday (2004) investigated
nominalization as a grammatical metaphor, Sušinskienė (2006, 2008, 2010, 2012)
investigated nominalizations as cohesive devices. Even though, writers tend to use
nominalizations frequently in academic writing, but they also apply them in popular science
texts. Despite the fact, that various linguists have already written many works concerning
nominalization and its functions, but rather little attention has been paid to the semantic and
structural features of verb-based nominalizations in science popular texts. Therefore, there is
the need for more investigation in order to reveal how verb-based nominalizations operate as
a lexico-grammatical cohesive device in science popular texts. Hence, the research in this
field is necessary and useful.
The structure of the work:
The present research paper consists of the main body in which the progress of the
research and the results are arranged in several sections, each divided into subsections. The
first section, i.e. Introduction, defines the object, aim, objectives, research methods, material,
scope, relevance, novelty and structure of the research paper. The sequent sections reveal the
theoretical background of nominalizations. Another section investigates the usage and the
semantic and structural features of verb-based nominalizations. The section of conclusions
summarizes the research results and reveals if the objectives have been fully accomplished.
The last section of references and sources shows the materials used in writing the present
paper.
4
I.
THEORETICAL REVIEW OF NOMINALIZATION
1.1 The concept of nominalization
In order to understand the uniqueness of language, we should pay attention to its main
function which is to express communication. Many linguists as Halliday and Hassan (1976),
Beaugrande and Dressler (1981), Valeika (1985), Swales (1990), Martin (1992) and others
have analysed the importance of language as it helps to express the precise ideas that are
logically linked according to lexical, grammatical and semantic relations. Every form of a
language, whether it is written or spoken has ties which combine every phrase, expression or
sentence into one coherent unit. The main purpose of a writer is to keep the text cohesive, due
to the fact that a reader could be able to grasp and understand the gist of a text. Hence, it is
significant to discuss nominalization because it plays an important role in helping to maintain
the text coherent and cohesive2.
The concept of nominalization could be easily explained by Trask’s (2005:204)
definition, “any grammatical unit which behaves like a noun or a noun phrase but which is
built from something very different” is known as the nominalization. It means that nouns
could be formed from other nouns, verbs and adjectives. For example: “the English word
arrive is a verb, as in She arrived at ten o’clock, but the word arrival is a noun, as in Her
sudden arrival surprised us” (Ibid.). Here we can see that the noun arrival is shaped from the
verb arrive and it means that arrival is a nominalization of arrive. Consider another sample:
“The poor are always with us, in this sentence the adjective poor has been nominalized into a
noun without any transformations of the word” (ibid.205). Consider these given examples: He
is so vain and He is full of vanity. In the first sample the word vain is an adjective while in the
second example it is turned into a noun vanity by adding a suffix.
Banks (2003:129) states that there are a few options of creating nominalized forms of
processes, but not every option is available for a particular verb. He distinguishes the
following groups of verb-based nominalizations:
1. nominalizations which are morphologically identical with agnate verb (e.g. haul,
estimate, change);
2. nominalizations which have no agnate verb, but which nevertheless designate a
process (e.g. occasion, preference, reading).
3. nominalizations which have an agnate verb, but are not morphologically identical
(e.g. growth, translation, occurrence).
2
Cohesion and Coherence is discussed in detail in Chapter 2. Cohesion and Coherence.
5
Those nominalizations of the first group are morphologically alike with agnate verb but
they might be pronounced differently according to the stress which indicates whether the
word is used as a verb or as a noun. For instance, the word protest, when the first syllable is
stressed the word is used as a noun while when the last syllable is stressed it is used as a verb.
The second group of verb-based nominalizations expresses some kind of process but they do
not have an agnate verb, the verb is only transformed into a noun. The third group of verbbased nominalizations that have an agnate verb, but differ morphologically are composed by
adding various suffixes. This is the biggest source of creating not only the verb-based
nominalizations but all kinds of nominalizations as well, because in the English language
suffixation is the most common form of deriving words. The following suffixes are added in
order to make verb-based nominalizations:

-ment (e.g. to engage

-tion (e.g. to destruct
destruction);

-sion (e.g. to decide
decision);

-age (e.g. to pass
passage);

-ance (e.g to allow
allowance);

-ence (e.g. to persist

-(e)ry (e.g. to bribe
bribery);

-ure (e.g. to enclose
enclosure);

-sis (e.g. to analyze
analysis);

-th (e.g. to grow → growth) and etc.
engagement);
persistence);
Suffixation helps not only to create nouns from other word classes but also to avoid
repetition. For instance: 1) Mary is a very clever girl and 2) Her cleverness is the main
reason why everyone admires her. In the first sample the adjective clever is used while in the
following sentence the nominalization of adjective cleverness is applied in order to avoid
repeating the same word clever. Also, these examples disclose that nominalization assists in
maintaining the link between two ideas.
Furthermore, Bussmann adds that, “virtually any word can be nominalized:
conjunctions (no ifs, ands, or buts), adverbs (the here and now), particles (a resounding no),
or parts of words (an ism)” (2006:804). It could be noted that nominalization is a unique
phenomenon which helps the writer to create nouns from different word classes. Meanwhile
Chomsky (1970), Fillmore (1968) and Lakoff (1970) expressed the idea that nominalization is
a process which transforms a verbal phrase into a nominal form. It could be said that
nominalization also serves as the noun creating device which might display different kinds of
activities that are typical for the verb which is the basis of producing that nominalized noun.
6
One of the main functions of nominalization is that it serves as a cohesive device. Four
groups of cohesive devices were distinguished by Valeika (1985:73-102):
1) grammatical (reference, substitution, ellipsis, and word order);
2) lexico-grammatical (articles, pronouns, conjunctives, conjunctive adjectives, particles,
modal words, quantifiers, nominalizations);
3) lexico-syntactic (periphrasis, parenthesis);
4) lexical cohesion (lexical repetition, synonyms, antonyms, general nouns, hyponyms,
meronyms, paronyms and converses).
This distinction shows that there are grammatical, lexico-grammatical, lexico-syntactic
and lexical groups of cohesive devices. Nominalization is one of many cohesive devices that
belong to the group of lexico-grammatical cohesive devices. Lexico-grammatical group is
simply understood as the combination of vocabulary and grammar. It implies that every word
consists of lexical and grammatical meanings. According to Perez (2007), lexico-grammatical
devices are generally called texture. Online Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
(2008) 3 provides a definition of a texture which is defined as, “the way the different parts of a
piece of writing, music, art are combined in order to produce a final effect”. In addition to
this, Stockwell (2009:1) notes that texture is actually perceived as being the experienced
quality of textuality. While Eggins (2004:116) states that, “in language we use finite means to
realize infinite ends”. Lexico-grammatical devices allow us to do this by providing finite
expression units (i.e. sounds) which serve in realizing the infinite contents (i.e. meanings). In
addition, it could be said that nominalization as being one of lexico-grammatical cohesive
devices aids in creating a texture by forming a new word and incorporating a new meaning
into that word. Also, nominalization is a unique method because it assists in compressing a lot
of information in an economic way.
In conclusion, it can be said that nominalization is defined as a process by which the
words belonging to different word classes are transformed into the corresponding nouns. The
suffixation is the most productive way of deriving nominalizations which are useful lexicogrammatical cohesive devices that operate on helping to diminish the extent of a text.
Moreover, the phenomenon of nominalization is perceived as being a method of transforming
verbal expressions into nominal ones.
3
Online Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English available from: http://www.ldoceonline.com/. Accessed
on 4 January, 2013.
7
1.2 Nominalization as the form of grammatical metaphor
It should be mentioned that such linguists as Halliday (2004), Downing and Locke
(1992) stated that nominalizations can be understood as grammatical metaphors. Moreover,
any situation might be expressed in a few ways. A typical way of realisation is called the
congruent while the other way is a metaphorical one. These two ways are illustrated by
samples:
1) I walked in the evening along the river as far as Henley.
2) Our evening walk along the river took us to Hanley.
The first example is a congruent form of realisation as the word walk in this sentence is
interpreted as the main process and the Agent is I. While in the second sample the word walk
which typically denotes a process is used as a metaphorical interpretation and becomes the
Agent of a sentence. In this instance the process is realised by a nominal form instead of by a
verb. What is more, there are even words in English that have already become as grammatical
metaphor expressions. For example: shopping signifies the notion of “going to the shops and
buying things” (Downing and Locke, 1992:148-149). Grammatical metaphor is a form of
nominalization which provides an opportunity to express the same idea not in a typical but in
a metaphorical way. As noted by Fairclough (2003:12-13), “instead of representing processes
which are taking place in the world as processes (grammatically, in clause or sentences with
verbs), they are represented as entities (grammatically, through nominalization i.e.
transforming a clause into a nominal or noun-like entity)”. Thus, a grammatical metaphor
might be grasped as a modification of a process where a clause is transformed into a nominal
unit.
Downing and Locke (1992:150-152) categorized five most common types of
grammatical metaphors:
1) Process realised as Thing:
Take a deep breath instead of Breathe deeply. The process breathe is nominalized and
used as a grammatical metaphor denoting thing.
2) Attribute realised as Thing:
The usefulness of this machinery is dwindling rather than This machinery is becoming
less useful. The attribute less useful is transformed into abstract noun usefulness.
3) Circumstance realised as Thing:
The seventeenth century saw the development of systemic scientific publication or In
the seventeenth century scientific works began to be published systemically. A circumstance
8
in the seventeenth century is used metaphorically and functions as locative Subject the
seventeenth century.
4) Process and circumstance as part of the Thing:
His best-selling novel instead of His novel is selling better than others. The process
selling and a circumstance better are nominalized into one metaphorical expression bestselling.
5) Dependent situation as Thing;
Fears of disruption to oil supplies from the Gulf helped push crude oil prices above
$20 a barrel rather than Because people feared that oil would not be supplied as usual from
the Gulf, the price of crude oil rose to above $20 a barrel. The situation expressed by people
feared that oil would not be supplied as usual from the Gulf is exposed by nominal metaphor
where the reader’s attention is drawn by noun fears instead of a situation demonstrated by a
verb feared.
Generally it could be said that grammatical metaphor enables the writer to express the
same idea in two distinct ways. Sometimes it even aids in compacting a lot of information in a
few expressions. Also, grammatical metaphor assists in transforming the process, attribute,
circumstance and situation into the realization of being a thing.
Ravelli (1988) adds that both the grammatical metaphor and the congruent expression
have the same meaning by sharing the semantic context which is expressed in different forms.
For example:
1) They feel secure (this is a congruent phrase) and 2) Their feeling of security (this is a
metaphorical expression).
These two cases above have the same meaning which is expressed in distinct ways. The
first example is a typical congruent saying while the second one is realized as a metaphor
which signifies the same meaning but is revealed in a dissimilar form. Moreover, Ravelli
argues that grammatical metaphors are formed according to derivation and agnation
(1999:99). However, it is noted that sometimes, “the entire clause may be metaphorical, but
often only parts of a clause are metaphorical” (Ibid.). While Tavernier (2002) provides the
idea that grammatical metaphor which construes processes as nominal groups enables the two
processes to be linked together within a clause. Thus, these nominal groups lead to a higher
lexical density and a lower level of grammatical intricacy.
In accordance with Matthiessen (1995:678), “nominal groups may serve as
metaphorical realizations of process configurations in alternate with congruent clauses”. It
means that nominal groups are understood as grammatical metaphors because verbal
expressions are transferred into nominal ones. Here nominalization fulfils a configuration of
9
the process within the structure of the nominal group. Due to the fact that the grammatical
metaphor is perceived as the nominalization of processes, Banks (2003) displays the idea that
processes are congruently coded as verbs. When the processes are encoded as nouns then they
are accepted as grammatical metaphors which have a non-congruent form.
To sum up, a nominalization is defined as a result of the metaphorization of the process.
Grammatical metaphor is a useful form of nominalization because it enables a writer to reveal
the same information in a few ways. Also, it aids in showing the idea in more abstract way
accompanied by the density of the nominals. Grammatical metaphor gives a chance to pack a
large amount of information into a small place.
1.3 Verb-based nominalizations
The biggest source of nominalizations is created from verbs. Therefore, verb-based
nominalizations are most frequently used in order to compose nouns. According to Downing
and Locke (1992:149), “languages abound in nouns”. Hence, nominalization is one of the
reasons why language possesses so many nouns, as they are also created from verbs.
Notwithstanding, to quote Sušinskienė (2012:137), “a nominalization is not an autonomous
unit; it arises in the text and is based on an underlying proposition which is a set of
relationships of the verb with it’s actants”. It reveals that a proposition4 is perceived as being
the part of the meaning of a clause or sentence which is constant, despite changes in such
things as the voice of the clause. According to Mackenzie (1996:333), “nominalization is
relevant not only to the front-to-back relations in discourse, but also right-to-left relations”.
This shows that not only nominalization should be considered in mind, but also information
(it’s actants) that surrounds the nominalization. Everything that surrounds nominalization is
it’s background that shows from what nominalization has originated. The fact that proposition
is understood as a sentence which deprived of modality reveals that nominalizations emerge
from propositions (Sušinskienė, 2006). However, it should be stressed that the proposition is
not an abstract construction, but is realised as a clause. Consequently, “the nominalization is
materially related to the clause; semantically it is related to the propositional content of the
clause” (Sušinskienė, 2010:144). Due to the fact that nominalization has ties with a clause
and proposition, it serves not only as nouns creating method but also maintains cohesion of
the sentences.
Verb-based nominalizations according to their inner character of underlying verb are
categorized into four types: activity, state, achievement and accomplishment. Vendler
4
Proposition. Available from
http://www01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAProposition.htm. Accessed on 29 March,
2013.
10
(1967:97-121) and Mourelatos (1978:415-434) explained that activity meant a process
(durative), state involves no dynamics, the achievement denotes verbs of inception or the
climax (end) of a process and accomplishment is understood as verbs that have an end-point
built in. Furthermore, according to their denoting kind of process nominalizations are
categorized into: 1) material, 2) happening, 3) mental, 4) verbal, 5) relational and 6)
existential5. Moreover, as Sušinskienė (2009:89) states verbs in regard to the semantic
properties help to divide nominalizations into imperfective and perfective. Imperfective
means that verb-based nominalizations denote activity. While perfective is the group of verbbased nominalizations that represents the result of the event. In addition, it should be noted
that based on the proposition two types of nominal expressions are attained: gerundive and
non-gerundive. For instance, Chomsky (1980:15) illustrates these two types with the
following examples:
(1) John is eager to please.
(2) John’s being eager to please.
(3) John’s eagerness to please.
The first example above is a simple sentence without any nominalizations. While the
second sample is the gerundive nominal because the expression John is eager is transformed
into gerundive nominal John’s being eager. The third example shows the derived nominal
John’s eagerness. Moreover, gerundive nominal expressions and derived nominal expression
(i.e. non-gerundive) differ. Chomsky (Ibid.,16) adds that gerundive nominal can slightly be
formed free from propositions of subject-predicate form and the meaning between the
gerundive and proposition is quite regular. Furthermore, gerundive nominals do not have the
internal structure of a noun phrase, whereas the derived nominals have the internal structure
of a noun phrase. Also, on the contrary to gerundive nominal, the derived nominal has quite a
varied semantic relationship between the associated proposition. In addition, these two groups
differ according to their syntactic patterning as gerundive nominalizations structures pattern
after verbs while non-gerundive structures pattern after nouns (Sušinskiene, 2006).
Meanwhile, Hathaway (1967:243) pointed out that, “for many verbs no abstract noun form
other than the gerund exists in the lexicon”. Thus, it can be said that gerundive nominal can
derive from any proposition. However, gerunds do not express the substantive process and
they should not be treated as a noun proper because they are more verbal than nominal
(Chomsky, 1970:184-221; Duffley, 2000:221-248). Even though, gerundive and nongerundive nominals contrast but the fact that their constructions are related to the same source
5
Nominalizations showing different kinds of processes are discussed in Chapter 3.
11
shows that they have one common feature (Heyvaert, 2003:76). Both: gerundive and nongerundive nominal expressions are created by applying the process of nominalization.
In conclusion, it can be noted that verb-based nominalizations are closely related with
their underlying propositions. Based on the inner character of the underlying verb, verb-based
nominalizations express activity, state, achievement and accomplishment. Also, verb-based
nominalizations according to their denoting process might be distinguished into material,
happening, mental, verbal, relational and existential. According to the semantic feature,
nominalizations are divided into imperfective (expressing activity) and perfective (expressing
the result of the action). Nominalizations may also occur in the discourse with explicit
underlying propositions or with implicit underlying propositions6. This point discloses that
every verb-based nominalization is linked with the context of a discourse and is used to
preserve the relations between the sentences.
The following chapter is dedicated to cohesion and coherence because nominalization
plays an important role as being a cohesive device.
6
Explicit and implicit nominalizations are discussed in the Chapter.2.1 Nominalization as a lexico-grammatical
cohesive device in science popular texts.
12
II.
COHESION AND COHERENCE
Nowadays, in the world where technologies play an important role in our lives, the
language has become more flexible to the changing needs of communication. Some languages
are dying; others have undergone various difficulties by absorbing particular expressions of
different languages and rejecting its own unique phrases or words that are no longer useable.
Today, many linguists as Valeika (1985), Martin (1992), Eggins (2004), and others focus on
the spoken or the written text as a whole unit. The primary attention is paid to the
connectedness of ideas, due to the fact that comprehension of the discourse plays an important
role in learning and perceiving the world as it is. Here the terms cohesion and coherence come
into view.
Trask (2005:40) points that cohesion is the system of explicit linguistic links which
ensure the structure of a discourse. Moreover, Crystal (2003:81) suggests that the term
cohesion is understood as, “<…> surface-structure features of an utterance or text which link
different parts of sentences or larger units of discourse”. Meanwhile, Bussman (2006:199)
revealed that cohesion is produced by the following means:
a) the repetition of the text elements (e.g. recurrence, textphoric, paraphrase,
parallelism);
b) the compacting of the text by using ellipsis;
c) the use of morphological and syntactic devices which are applied in order to reveal
the variety of relationships (i.e. connection, tense, aspect, deixis or theme-rheme
relationship).
As viewed by Bussman (2006:198), coherence could be generally understood as, “the
grammatical and semantic interconnectedness between sentences that form a text”. While
concentrating on a narrower sense it is interpreted as implying the semantic meaning and the
basic interconnectedness of the meanings of the discourse. Here the main important aspect is
the cognitive structure of a text. We might say, following Trask (2005:39), that coherence
helps the text to make sense. Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) cleared the differences between
cohesion and coherence. They explained that cohesion refers to the semantic relations in the
text; meanwhile coherence is referred to the semantic and pragmatic relations between parts
which are explained by bearing in mind the background of specific world knowledge. That is
why it is important to distinguish these two terms because cohesion maintains the connection
within the text whereas coherence binds the discourse from its’ outside. Mosenthal and
Tierney (1984:240-244) mentioned that there is some kind of correlation between the use of
13
cohesive devices and the general coherence or clarity of the text. That is why it is important to
mention that the discourse has both: coherence and cohesion.
Halliday and Hassan (1976) expressed the idea that every text has a semantic meaning
which refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text. It is important to accept the
discourse not only as being structured by sentences but also as being realized by them. This
reveals that each sentence has an encoded meaning which unites the whole text. Generally
speaking, cohesion might be simply described as the system which consists of relations of
meaning that prevails within the text and helps to characterize a piece of writing as a text
(Ibid.). Cohesion refers to semantic meaning of grammatical units such as sentences, clauses,
word groups within the text while coherence refers to the whole semantic meaning of the text
that is created by applying cohesion. When talking about cohesion and coherence, the texture
must be mentioned as well. As Martin (2001:35) claims, “cohesion is one aspect of the study
of texture, which can be defined as the process whereby meaning is channelled into a
digestible current of discourse”. Also, the scholar remarks that texture is considered to be an
aspect of the study of coherence, which is known as the process that involves understanding
and expectations about the social context of the discourse (Ibid.). It means that texture is a
significant component of a discourse and it helps to attain the essential meaning of a text. In
general, coherence helps to grasp the basic meaning of the discourse which is created by
grammatical and lexical cohesive devices.
In conclusion, coherence of a text is defined as a logico-semantic and informationalpragmatic integration, whereas cohesion of a text is actually the realization of the coherence
by applying linguistic means. Also, cohesion is divided into grammatical and lexical classes
which have particular cohesive devices. We must bear in mind that both: cohesion and
coherence make the discourse a unified piece of various ideas which are related with each
other.
2.1 Nominalization as a lexico-grammatical cohesive device in science
popular texts
Having discussed cohesion and coherence it is of vital importance to discuss the aspects
of nominalization as being lexico-grammatical cohesive device. This phenomenon is
understood as a cohesive device because it sustains the language economy by unifying
expressions in the text. McCarthy and Carter (1994:90) emphasised that,” cohesion does more
than just link sentences and utterances on the surface of the text; it also plays its part in
creating genres and registers, and is one of the ‘discourse management’ features that the
14
lexico-grammatical system offers”. This means that a writer decides how the discourse will be
segmented and how the textual hierarchy of the discourse will be revealed.
As stated by Verikaitė (1999:5), “although, cohesion is talked of as grammatical and
lexical, it is not purely formal relation, it is also semantic relation”. The semantic relation is
considered to occur between an element in the text and some other element which is of vital
importance for the explanation of the former. Furthermore, Verikaitė adds that these two
elements might have a structural relation or may not have (Ibid.). Nominalization as being a
cohesive device appears in two types of cohesion: general and specific (Sušinskienė, 2008).
Also, nominalizations are divided in the discourse according to their occurrences with explicit
or implicit underlying propositions. When it shows general cohesion, nominalization occurs
in the title of a text and the source which is the underlying proposition is found somewhere in
the text (explicit nominalization). However, this type of cohesion does not connect different
sentences but organizes the text sentences into one supraphrasal unit (ibid.). While talking
about specific cohesion, the nominalization is preceded or followed by the respective
proposition (implicit nominalization). Explicit nominalizations are not as free as implicit ones
which are unbounded by co-text and implicit nominalizations do not have an underlying
source placed somewhere in the discourse. Moreover, the nominalization that includes one
proposition in another reveals that the proposition which contains the nominalization is called
the matrix proposition. Also, it should be mentioned that when nominalizations contain a
function of serving as a link between the propositions, then they are used as two types of
reference: anaphoric and cataphoric. Each type of the reference creates links between distinct
expressions.
It should be also claimed that nominalization serves as a lexico-grammatical cohesive
device, due to the fact that it reveals lexical (referring to vocabulary) and grammatical
(referring to grammar) aspects. Firstly, when it is used as lexical cohesive device then it has a
function of condensing information by using fewer words of the vocabulary. Secondly, as a
grammatical cohesive device it transforms the word into another one belonging to a different
word class and applies grammar rules in order to join two ideas by having the verb in one
sentence and the nominalized version of it in the other sentence.
The attention of the text must be directed not only to its semantic meaning but to the
genre of the discourse as well. Nominalizations are often used in science popular texts.
Popular science is considered as a sub-genre of scientific writing, which has its own unique
linguistic features of interaction (Myers 1989, 1990a, 1990b, 1991; Varttala 1999;
Calsamiglia 2003; Parkinson and Adendorff 2004). As we all know, science texts are difficult
to read and understand as they are written in scientific language that possess various specific
15
terms of items. Furthermore, various science discourses are imposed to scientists or those who
have a certain knowledge required in order to understand a particular field of science but not
to the ordinary readers. The main reason why the science genre has a sub-genre of popular
science is to simplify the science language to the readers that do not have any specific
knowledge of scientific matters. As pointed out by Sušinskienė (2012), “the science popular
writing is rather personalized, and the main purpose is just to present the information to the
readers while in specialized writing the author communicates accurate information to the
readers”. Furthermore, science popular texts are also called science popularisation texts. As
pointed out by Petrėnienė (2011:5), “science popularisation is perceived as communicational
interaction between a scientist and the general public, as presentation of basic knowledge and
facts about science and technology to the public in popular and understandable way”. It
discloses that scientific text is transformed into less complicated and more easily
understandable discourse and is adapted to the daily life experience. Moreover, Petrėnienė
observes that short sentences, various expressive units of speech and syntactical figures are
used in science popular texts (Ibid.). Consequently they aim at creating a lively, emotional
text which attracts the reader’s attention. Nominalizations are used in such science
popularization discourse because it contributes not only in making the text coherent but also
in integrating information in an economical way.
To conclude this chapter it is important to stress that nominalization also serves not only
as a process of creating nouns, but also as a lexico-grammatical cohesive device. In addition
to this, nominalizations play an important role in organizing the science popular texts because
it contributes to the lexico-grammatical cohesion of the text and to the condensation of
information. Science popular texts are illustrative, expressive and the factual information is
conveyed in a concise manner due to the use of nominalizations.
As the theory concerning the phenomenon of nominalization has been discussed by
applying the descriptive-theoretical literary analysis, now the paper focuses on the practical
part of the research. The following chapter is dedicated to the usage of verb-based
nominalizations in science popular texts.
16
III. THE USAGE OF VERB-BASED NOMINALIZATIONS
IN SCIENCE POPULAR TEXTS
3.1 Methodological considerations
The analysis of the present paper is based on the verb-based nominalizations taken from
the online English magazine Popular science (see the website http://www.popsci.com/).
Popular science is an American magazine which is being released monthly. This magazine
was founded in 1872 and has been translated into 30 languages and is published in 45
countries. Moreover this magazine covers such topics as gadgets, technology, military,
science, medicine, etc. 700 examples of verb-based nominalizations were drawn and
examined from 35 articles covering the period from January 8, 2012 to March 27, 2013. All
the articles were selected from the topic about global warming.
The intention of this chapter is to analyze verb-based nominalizations that are derived in
two ways: 1) by the use of “material” suffixes and 2) by the use of “zero” suffixes. Verbbased nominalizations used in the corpus represented two distinct semantic groups:
imperfective and perfective. In addition, nominalizations that denoted processes were
distinguished into: material, happening, mental, verbal, relational and existential. This
chapter is dedicated to discuss their semantic and structural features in detail. In order to
interpret and examine nominalizations the descriptive-analytical method was applied. Also,
the statistical method helped to systemize and generalize the research results.
Firstly, by means of descriptive-analytical method, 700 verb-based nominalizations
were identified and classified according to their formation by adding material suffixes and by
using zero suffixation. Secondly, all 700 examples of verb-based nominalizations were
categorized according to their denoting processes into material, happening, mental, verbal,
relational and existential nominalizations. In conformity with denoting processes,
nominalizations have semantic and structural features. By the semantic feature,
nominalizations fall into imperfective (showing the action) and perfective (showing the result)
groups, while by the structural feature nominalizations are divided into absolute and nonabsolute. Only 70 verb-based nominalizations were interpreted in detail. The statistical
method by applying a spreadsheet program MCExcel 2010 was used to count all the examples
and to draw figures which visually disclose the research results.
17
3.2 Material suffixes
One of the most productive ways by creating nominalizations is suffixation. By adding
suffixes to a verb not only the words’ class changes but the semantic words’ class as well. The
most common suffixes used in order to create verb-based nominalizations are the following:
-ance/-ence, -ery, -ing, -ion/-sion/-tion/-ation, -ment, -sis, -th, -ure, -al, -age.
3.2.1 Suffixes -ance/-ence
Marchand (1969:249) pointed out that verb-based nominalizations with the suffix ance/-ence denote deverbal nouns which express the idea of action. For example :
(1) Communities challenged with too little water, meanwhile, are finding new supplies
through conservation and efficiency schemes that feature better metering and pricing of
water, restrictions on outdoor water use, retrofitting with water-miserly appliances and
fixtures, and reusing grey water to irrigate gardens. (Elizabeth Royte, Strategies for a
Changing Planet: Water, 12 June 2012)
(2) So differences in cloud formation, wrought by a warming climate, could help
counteract the effects of that warming. (Rebecca Boyle, Earth’s Clouds Are Getting Lower,
Which Could Be a Good Thing, 23 February 2012)
In the samples above nominalizations appliances and differences are formed from the
verbs apply and differ and express the idea of action.
3.2.2 Suffix -ery
The suffix -ery was generally employed with nominalizations which showed the result
of the process. The following samples illustrate this:
(3) Instead, most advocates favor mechanical aerosol delivery methods. (Damon Tabor,
Strategies for a Changing Planet: If All Else Fails…, 12 June 2012)
(4) She was referring to the discovery and extraction of unconventional shale gas in
North America, thanks largely to the controversial process called hydraulic fracturing, which
has expanded production and dropped prices of natural gas and made arctic hydrocabons
less cost competitive. (Susan Moran, As The Earth Warms, The Lure Of The Arctic’s Natural
Resources Grows, 1 February 2013)
3.2.3 Suffix -ing
The examples below reveal that the suffix -ing was added to the verbs to form nouns
denoting:

process;
18

result of something;
PROCESS
(5) It’s not in doubt that global warming is changing the planet for the worse, but it’s
difficult to identify which, if any, specific weather events we can definitively link to it. (Colin
Lecher, Are Recent Extreme Weather Events Caused By Global Warming? NASA Scientist
Says Yes, 7 August 2012)
In the example above nominalization warming reveals the process as it is a continuous
action that still proceeds.
RESULT OF SOMETHING
(6) That’s interesting, but perhaps more intriguing is the idea that this theory could aid
in our understanding of where global warming originates and where it is going. (Clay
Dillow, Global Warming Could Be Linked to the Number of Exploding Stars in the Sky, 6
September 2012)
In the example 6 we can see that understanding discloses the result of perceiving issues
about the global warming.
(7) Still-living victims who emergency workers decided to black-tag, leaving them to
their death so they could devote their limited time and resources to helping people who had a
chance of surviving. (Seth Fletcher, Did Global Warming Destroyed My Hometown?, 19
January 2012)
This example reveals that surviving indicates the result of staying alive.
3.2.4 Suffixes -ion/-sion/-tion/-ation
Verb-based nominalizations with suffixes -ion/-sion/-tion/-ation described:

state;

process;

result of the process.
Consider:
STATE
(8) His sarcasm seemed to come from a place of exasperation that I happen to share – a
frustration with the odd American reluctance to consider the possibility that climate change
is not only real, but already contributing to disasters like the one in Japan. (Seth Fletcher,
Did Global Warming Destroyed My Hometown?, 19 January 2012)
In the above example we can see that a frustration is a nominalization which indicates
the state of being frustrated.
PROCESS
19
(9) Carbin and his colleagues can often tell days in advance when weather conditions
will be right for tornado formation. (Seth Fletcher, Did Global Warming Destroyed My
Hometown?, 19 January 2012)
(10) In his State of the Union Address, Obama promised execute action to reduce
production and fund alternative fuel research. (Shaunacy Ferro, Obama’s Finally Serious
About Climate Change, 13 February 2013)
The examples 9 and 10 illustrate the process because the nominalizations formation,
action and production are continuous acts and are used without any article indicating the
result or accomplishment of these acts.
RESULT OF THE PROCESS
(11) With an average elevation of just five feet above sea level, the Maldives-a nation
comprising 1,192 islands in the Indian Ocean-is the lowest country in the world. (Katharine
Gammon, Building Artificial Islands That Rise With the Sea, 6 August 2012)
(12) The aggregate result of all this is a reduction in the ecosystem’s ability to
sequester carbon. (Clay Dillow, The 2000-2004 North American Drought was the Worst in
800 Years, 30 June 2012)
In the examples 11 and 12 the articles an and a expose that nominalizations elevation
and reduction are a completed actions which denote the result of the process.
(13) So, the theory goes, fewer star explosions equals a warmer atmosphere. (Clay
Dillow, Global Warming Could Be Linked to the Number of Exploding Stars in the Sky, 6
September 2012)
(14) And in the 12 years he’s spent tracking animals with radio and GPS collars,
Gehrt, a wildlife ecologist at Ohio State University, has witnessed some remarkable
adaptations. (John Mahoney, Why Wild Animals Are Moving Into Cities, And What To Do
About It?, 19 December 2012)
In the example 13 and 14 it is shown that such nominalizations as explosions and
adaptions are the results of such happened processes as exploding and adapting.
3.2.5 Suffix -ment
The suffix -ment revealed:

process;

result of an action;

object of an action;

agent of an action.
20
Consider the examples:
PROCESS
(15) The trust would divert that funding into the research development of alternative
fuel sources to get cars and trucks off oil. (Shaunacy Ferro, Obama’s Finally Serious About
Climate Change, 13 February 2013)
In the example above the process is being described because here the nominalization
development is understood as an action having unlimited duration.
RESULT OF AN ACTION
(16) A landmark study refines measurements of losses in Greenland and Antarctica and
how ice melt is contributing to rising seas. (Rebecca Boyle, Scientists Find Clearest Evidence
Yet of Monumental Polar Ice Melt, 29 November 2012)
In this example measurements are perceived as the result of an action because the verb
measure denotes the action and its nominalized form measurements contain in itself the
meaning of the completion i.e. the result.
OBJECT OF AN ACTION
(17) Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analysing
the satellite data, said in a statement: Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this
type occur about once every 150 years on average. (Colin Lecher, In Record Summer Heat,
97 Percent of Greenland’s Surface Ice Turns to Slush, 25 June 2012)
In this example we can see that a statement is accompanied by the article a, and this
article discloses that this is the object of an action to state.
AGENT OF AN ACTION
(18) The Maldivian government has started a joint venture with the architectural firm
Dutch Docklands International to build the world’s largest artificial floating-island project,
which will stay above water no matter how many glaciers melt. (Katharine Gammon, Building
Artificial Islands That Rise With the Sea, 6 August 2012)
In the example above clearly nominalization government plays an important role as
article the intensifies that. Moreover, government is an agent of an action to govern.
3.2.6 Suffix -sis
Nominalizations with suffix -sis denoted a result of the process. The example is given
bellow:
(19) An analysis in nature has confirmed what we already knew: politicians need to
hurry up if we’re going to stop climate change. (Colin Lecher, Politics Is Most Important
Factor for Climate Future, Study Finds, 4 January 2013)
21
The example 19 reveals that analysis is the result of the process because article an
presents that the process analyze is completed.
3.2.7 Suffix -th
The suffix -th mainly created nominalizations that showed both: the process and the
result of the process. See the examples below:
PROCESS
(20) Over the past two decades, scientists have conducted more than a dozen smallscale trials to confirm that iron seeding does indeed stimulate the growth of phytoplankton.
(Damon Tabor, Strategies for a Changing Planet: If All Else Fails…, 12 June 2012)
In the example above we can observe that the growth is perceived as a continuous
action which is not restricted by time.
RESULT OF THE PROCESS
(21) The Midwest already suffered plenty of severe weather this week, with 30tornado
reports and 12 deaths Tuesday night and into Wednesday. (Rebecca Boyle, Storm Watch:
Driven By Warm Air, Massive Tornado Outbreak Forecast for Friday, 1 March 2012)
In this example deaths are understood as the result of the process to die and in itself the
nominalization deaths contain the meaning of the result and cannot be described as the
process.
3.2.8 Suffix -ure
Verb-based nominalizations with suffix -ure described the process and the result of an
action:
PROCESS
(22) The combined pressures of these weather patterns caused an iceberg about half the
size Manhattan to break off of the Petermann Glacier and float right through the Nares Strait.
(Krislyn Placide, A Satellite View of Glacial Melting, 22 October, 2012)
In the example above pressures demonstrate the process of pressing something and this
action has unlimited duration.
RESULT OF AN ACTION
(23) The tornado churned on to the east, tagging its path with bizarre signatures-wood
piercing asphalt, rubber piercing wood. (Seth Fletcher, Did Global Warming Destroyed My
Hometown?, 19 January 2012)
In this example signatures are the nominalized form of the verb to sign. In addition, this
nominalization in itself bears the meaning of the completed action i.e. the result.
22
3.2.9 Zero derivation
Zero derivation or in other words conversion is a process when a verb changes into a
noun without adding any material suffixes. Adams (1973) categorizes three main groups of
zero-derived nouns from verbs: 1) the noun denotes the agent of the action expressed by the
verb, 2) the noun denotes the concrete object or result of the action and 3) the noun denotes
the abstract result of the action. The following examples are provided respectively:
(24) Climate change has reduced sea ice cover in Hudson Bay, which enables orcas to
spend more time there feeding. (Rebecca Boyle, 5 Creatures That Could Actually Be Helped
By A Warming World, 14 January 2013)
The noun change denotes the agent of the action expressed by the verb.
(25) For most people, animals and plants, a warming planet is generally a bad thing,
bringing dramatic climate shifts and changes in ecosystems. (Rebecca Boyle, 5 Creatures
That Could Actually Be Helped By a Warming World, 14 January 2013)
The example above reveals that such nouns as shifts and changes are nouns that denote
concrete results of the action.
(26) The study examined extreme weather events from 1951 to 1980, then compared
them with the events between 1980 and 2011. (Colin Lecher, Are Recent Extreme Weather
Events Caused By Global Warming? NASA Scientist Says Yes, 7 August 2012)
This instance exposes that the noun the study is the abstract result of an action to study.
To conclude it could be said that there are various kinds of suffixes that help to create
verb-based nominalizations. Such suffixes as -ance/-ence, -ery, -ing, -ion/-sion/-tion/-ation,
-ment, -sis, -th, -ure, -al, -age are often used to create verb-based nominalizations. In addition,
zero derivation (i.e. zero suffixation) is a productive way of verb-based nominalizations.
The frequency of material suffixes and zero suffixation is shown in the table below:
23
Table 1. The relative frequency of the suffixes
Suffixation
Raw freq. in the
The freq. per 100 words
corpus
in a corpus of 19,676
Coverage (%)
words
-Ø (zero suffixation)
296
1,5
42
-ion/-sion/-tion/-ation
238
1,2
33
-ing
90
0,5
14
-ment
40
0,2
6
-th
11
0.06
2
-ure
10
0,05
1
-sis
7
0,04
1
-ance/-ence
6
0,03
0,8
-ery
2
0,01
0,2
-al
0
0
0
-age
0
0
0
Total
700
3,59
100%
Using the formula, to calculate absolute frequency of nominalizations occurring per 100
words, the number of nominalizations was divided by the length of the corpus in which they
occurred and obtained number was multiplied by 100. For example: (296 nominalizations /
19,676 words) * 100 = 1,5 nominalizations per 100 words. The frequency calculated using
this formula shows how often nominalizations occur (Biber:1988).
The table above reveals that the most frequent were zero suffixation which accounted
for 42 per cent (296 tokens). Relatively frequent suffixes were -ion/-sion/-tion/-ation and they
composed 33 per cent (238 tokens). Also the -ing suffix was quite productive as it accounted
for 14 per cent (90 tokens). The suffix -ment accounted only for 6 per cent (40 tokens). The
suffixes -th and -ure were not very frequent, they only accounted for 2 per cent (11 tokens)
and 1 per cent (10 tokens), respectively. The least productive suffixes were -ance/-ence and ery. They accounted for 0,8 per cent (6 tokens) and 0,2 per cent (2 tokens), respectively. Such
suffixes as -al and -age were not found at all.
3.3 Material nominalizations
The main semantic components are processes, participants and circumstances. The
most important feature is a process which in propositions exists in two modes: 1) congruent
(i.e. expressed by the finite form of the verb) and non-congruent (i.e. expressed by a
24
nominalized form of the verb). Furthermore, verb-based nominalizations according to their
inner character of underlying verb are categorized into four types: activity, state, achievement
and accomplishment. Vendler (1967:97-121) and Mourelatos (1978:415-434) stated that
activity meant a process (durative), state has no dynamics, the achievement describes verbs of
inception or the climax (end) of a process and accomplishment reveals the verbs that have an
end-point built in.
Material nominalizations denote the processes of ‘doing’ which involve some physical
action and show that something is going on the external world. According to Halliday
(1994:110), “they express the notion that some entity ‘does’ something - which may be done
‘to’ some other entity”. Consider the following examples taken from Halliday:
The lion
caught
the tourist
The tourist
was caught by
the lion
Actor
Process
Goal
Goal
Process
Actor
From the example above we can see two material processes that are expressed by the
verb catch. To quote the scholar (1985:104), “if there is a Goal of the process, as well as an
Actor, the representation may come in either of two forms: either active, the lion caught the
tourist, or passive, the tourist was caught by the lion“. It should be mentioned that participant
which carries out the material process is called the Agent. As Cruse (1973) observes, Agents
are characterized by such features as volitive, effective, initiative and force. In addition,
material processes are considered to be causative processes and Agents are known as
Causers. Also, Agents might be perceived as showing two types: animate and inanimate. The
term Animate Causer is designated to present the Agent and the term External Causer is
designated to show an Internal Causer (Sušinskienė, 2006). Other participants in a ‘doing’
situation are: the Affected Patient, the Effected Patient, the Recipient, and the Beneficiary.
3.3.1 The semantic features of material nominalizations
According to the inner character of the underlying material process, the verb-based
nominalizations may occur with an imperfective (i.e. expressing activity) or a perfective (i.e.
expressing result) meaning. To quote Valeika and Sušinskienė (2012:7), “an imperfective
process is a process that is still continuing, i.e. a process that has been started but has not
reached its end, <…> a perfective process is the opposite of durative process: it is a process
that has passed through all the three phases: inceptive (beginning), medial (middle), and
terminal (end)”. On the one hand, when the verb expresses activity then the respective
25
nominalization has an imperfective meaning. On the other hand, the verb which denotes the
result contains a perfective meaning. Consider the following example:
(27) Some climate scientists, however, are critical of the analysis, saying the
correlation between global warming and specific extreme weather events isn’t great enough
to warrant linking them. (Colin Lecher, Are Recent Extreme Weather Events Caused By
Global Warming? NASA Scientist Says Yes, 7 August 2012)
The example above illustrates that the correlation displays the activity process which is
imperfective because it is an unbounded process, i.e. a process that has no built-in end. This
process is a continuous as there are no restricted time limits.
(28) Measuring ice loss happens in a number of ways. (Rebecca Boyle, Scientists Find
Clearest Evidence Yet of Monumental Polar Ice Melt, 29 November 2012)
This example shows that measuring is an unbounded process which reveals the activity
process and that is the reason why it is an imperfective nominalization.
(29) Global warming and environmental destruction are driving coyotes, bears and
mountain lions out of their habitats, but that’s only part of the reason why so many animals
call the city home. (John Mahoney, Why Wild Animals Are Moving Into Cities, And What To
Do About It, 19 December 2012)
The example demonstrates that the nominalization destruction is imperfective. It
describes the unbounded activity process which is a continuous process as it has no
restrictions to its duration.
The
verb-based
nominalizations
which
derived
from
propositions
denoting
accomplishment and achievement material processes that express the completion of the
process contain the perfective meaning. However, the accomplishment and achievement
processes might be imperfective as well. When accomplishment and achievement processes
show inceptive (beginning) and terminal (end) phases of an action that have duration, then
they are understood as imperfective. When the completion of the accomplishment and
achievement processes are used in the past or in the future tense form (i.e. the processes can
be completed in the past or in the future, not in the present), then they express the perfective
meaning (Valeika, Sušinskienė:2012). For example:
(30) The study correlated data from the same places and times, and discarded some
outlying observations that couldn’t be cross-checked. (Rebecca Boyle, Scientists Find
Clearest Evidence Yet Of Monumental Polar Ice Melt, 29 November 2012)
This example represents the verb-based nominalization observations which discloses
the accomplishment process. This accomplishment process expresses the completion of the
26
action to observe and is perfective in meaning because it denotes the result of the
accomplished action.
(31) The question becomes, to what degree are we going to tolerate the risk, and what
kind of adjustments to our lives are we willing to make?” Gehrt says. (John Mahoney, Why
Wild Animals Are Moving Into Cities, And What To Do About It, 19 December 2012)
(32) The orcas drew worldwide fascination and calls for help, but Canadian
environmental officials said they had no available icebreaker to cut a path to the sea.
(Rebecca Boyle, 5 Creatures That Could Actually Be Helped By A Warming World, 14
January 2013)
In the examples 31 and 32 above achievement processes are exposed. Such
nominalizations as adjustments and fascination denote the result (the product) of the process
and contain the perfective meaning as they show the successful completion of the process in
the future and in the past tense forms respectively.
The relative frequency of perfective material nominalizations and imperfective material
nominalizations is given in Figure 1 below:
29%
Perfective material
nominalizations
Imperfective material
nominalizations
71%
Figure 1. The relative frequency of perfective material nominalizations and
imperfective material nominalizations
In a corpus of 700 examples of verb-based nominalizations, 421 material
nominalizations were found. Figure 1 shows that imperfective material nominalizations were
the most common. They accounted for 71 per cent (300 tokens), while perfective material
nominalizations accounted for 29 per cent (121 tokens).
3.3.2 The structural features of material nominalizations
Nominalizations represent propositions and when a proposition is transformed into
nominal form, we may or may not preserve its constituents: participants and circumstances.
Nominalizations that are used with ‘zero’ modifications are referred to as absolute
nominalizations and those with ‘material’ modifications are referred to as non-absolute
27
nominalizations (Sušinskienė, 2006:56). Absolute material nominalizations could be generally
described as being nominalizations with unactualized participants and circumstances.
Consider absolute nominalizations:
(33) Finding and measuring them was made possible by a special device rigged up by
Sandia researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs’ Advanced Light Source, which
allowed them to discern the formation and eliminate other similar molecules that contain the
same atoms but in a different structure. (Clay Dillow, Existence Finally Confirmed of
Hypothetical Particle That Could Help Cool the Planet, 12 January 2012)
(34) President Obama promised to make meaningful progress on the issue of climate
change in the State of the Union Address last night. (Shauncy Ferro, Obama’s Finally Serious
About Climate Change, 13 February 2013)
In the instances above we can see that such actions as finding, measuring and progress
have not been accompanied by articles. Due to the fact that they are seen as material
nominalizations having unactualized participants and circumstances.
Consider non-absolute nominalizations:
(35) Nonetheless, it wasn’t until the morning that we realized that the damage reports
that had been streaming in over Facebook weren’t isolated. (Seth Fletcher, Did Global
Warming Destroy My Hometown?, 19 January 2012)
In this sample, the definite article the is generally treated as cohesive but according to
Mathesius (1975:52), “is due to purely conceptual lexical reasons”. Here the definite article
marks ‘subsequent reference’, e.g. a report - the report. If so, the noun damage, which in fact
denotes given information ( to damage - a damage), must be preceded by the definite article.
The expression the damage reports is the nominalized material process of the phrase to report
damages. Also it is a non-absolute nominalization because it has an article.
Other examples of non-absolute nominalizations are given below:
(36) The researchers behind the study knock down the excuse that waiting until
scientific and technological uncertainties are cleared up is worth delaying action. (Colin
Lecher, Politics Is Most Important Factor For Climate Future, Study Finds, 4 January 2013)
The example above is non-absolute nominalizations as it has article which emphasizes
the main action and attract attention to it (i.e. the excuse).
Valeika and Buitkienė (2003:61) noted that, “besides the article, the noun can be
determined by pronouns (all, any, some, other, each, every, either, neither, no; this/that,
these/those; my, your, his, her, its; our, their; much/many; little/a little; few/ a few; several),
numerals (one, two; first, second, etc.), and a genitive noun (John’s coat). Consider:
28
(37) These manipulations will become more difficult as we hit economic and physical
limits. (Elizabeth Royte, Strategies for a Changing Planet: Water, 12 June 2012)
(38) Their conclusion is based in part on abrupt temperature changes in the overall
temperature contrast between Greenland and Antarctica, according to a Cambridge news
release. (Rebecca Boyle, Human CO2 Emissions Could Avert the Next Ice Age, Study Says, 8
January 2012)
In the examples above we can notice that pronouns these and their are respectively used
with such nominalizations as manipulations and conclusion. These pronouns help to
determine the nouns and disclose the examples of non-absolute nominalizations.
The relative frequency of absolute nominalizations and non-absolute nominalizations is
illustrated in the figure below:
30%
Absolute material
nominalizations
Non- absolute material
nominalizations
70%
Figure 2. The relative frequency of absolute nominalizations and non-absolute
nominalizations.
In the corpus of 421 material nominalizations, non-absolute nominalizations dominated.
They accounted for 70 per cent (295 tokens). Absolute nominalizations used in the corpus
accounted for 30 per cent (126 tokens).
3.4 Happening nominalizations
Another important type of verb-based nominalizations’ is called happening
nominalizations. This kind of process is not carried out by a participant but rather reveals
what happened to a participant (Sušinskienė, 2006:61). In a situation like The cat died the
participant is not revealing an action, on the contrary what happed to a participant is being
described. Downing and Locke (1992), Valeika (1998) do not separate the process of
happening but shows a distinction between voluntary and involuntary processes. In addition,
Halliday (1985) excludes behavioural process as a separate type of happening process and
states that it is considered to be a typically involuntary. Those sentences that express
29
voluntary process are Agent-controlled, but sentences demonstrating involuntary process are
not Agent-controlled. Normally, happening nominalizations describe the end of the process,
however if it is used as an accomplishment then in express the middle phase of the process.
As already stated, behavioural processes belong to happening processes. Halliday
(1985) pointed out that these processes are as a “half-way house” between material and
mental processes. As behavioural processes like material processes include participant and
usually they include just one participant who is called the Behaver. Despite the fact that
behavioural processes are referred to as typically involuntary, however when they are used
with the intension of the Behaver they become voluntary. For instance: She coughed
nervously (involuntary) while She coughed discretely (voluntary). It should be noted that
behavioural processes indicate processes of physiological and psychological behaviour.
3.4.1 The semantic features of happening nominalizations
According to their lexical properties of the underlying verb, happening nominalizations
can denote an imperfective or a perfective process. Imperfective nominalizations are those
that derive from accomplishment verbs and express the middle phase of a process. Perfective
nominalizations arise from accomplishment process which denotes the final phase of the
process.
(39) Altogether the tornado destroyed 6,954 homes and caused at least $3billion in
damage. (Seth Fletcher, Did Global Warming Destroy My Hometown?, 19 January 2012)
(40) If it’s impossible to prove causation, it’s easy to see a disturbing correlation. (Seth
Fletcher, Did Global Warming Destroy My Hometown?, 19 January 2012)
The examples above reveal the perfective happening nominalizations such as damage,
causation because they show the final phase of the process (i.e. the result of such processes as
damaging and causing ). Moreover, these nominalizations are non-progressive and this also
reveals their perfective meaning.
(41) It holds the county’s all time heat record from January 1960, of 50.7 degrees
Celsius. (Shaunacy Ferro, Is Climate Change Self-Correcting? Australia’s Heatwave Stops
Gasoline Sales, 11 January 2013)
(42) Gehrt’s report urges anyone who spots a coyote to shout, throw rocks, or even
shoot it with a paintball gun. (John Mahoney, Why Wild Animals Are Moving Into Cities, And
What To Do About It, 19 December 2012)
The examples above denote happening nominalizations of achievement and they are
perfective because record and report disclose the result of the process.
Consider the examples of imperfective nominalizations:
30
(43) The most natural way to determine whether global warming is altering tornado
patterns is to look for changes in tornado statistics and then see whether climate models can
explain those changes. (Seth Fletcher, Did Global Warming Destroy My Hometown?, 19
January 2012)
This instance reveals the imperfective happening nominalizations as it describes the
middle phase of a happening process. The process is progressive as there is no end point for
the action.
(44) The melting isn’t a one-off event; every summer Greenland’s ice melts some
amount. (Colin Lecher, In Record Summer Heat, 97 Percent of Greenland’s Surface Ice Turns
To Slush, 25 June 2012)
This example discloses the imperfective happening nominalization because it reveals
the middle phase of the process. Also, it describes the unbounded activity process which is a
continuous process as it has no restrictions to its duration.
The relative frequency of perfective happening nominalizations and imperfective
happening nominalizations is illustrated in the figure below:
29%
Perfective happening
nominalizations
Imperfective happening
nominalizations
71%
Figure 3. The relative frequency of perfective happening nominalizations and
imperfective happening nominalizations
As we can see from the figure above, imperfective happening nominalizations were the
most frequent. They accounted for 71 per cent (145 tokens). Perfective nominalizations
composed only 29 per cent (60 tokens). In the corpus of 700 samples of verb-based
nominalizations, happening nominalizations were the second most common type of
nominalizations as 205 examples of them were discovered in the corpus.
3.4.2 The structural features of happening nominalizations
Happening verb-based nominalizations according to their structural features appear as
absolute and non-absolute. Consider:
31
(45) While the Artic seas are extremely productive, they are also very satisfied,
meaning there’s not much vertical mixing of nutrients in the ocean. (Susan Moran, In An Era
Of Climate Change, Where Will The Fish, And The Money, Go?, 25 January 2013)
(46) As warming and thawing continue scientists expect the water column to be more
stratified, which will prevent nutrients from percolating up to the surface. (Susan Moran, In
An Era Of Climate Change, Where Will The Fish, And The Money, Go?, 25 January 2013)
The examples above reveal absolute nominalizations of happening processes because
mixing, warming, thawing are not accompanied by the articles. Moreover, these are
involuntary processes as their as they are not accompanied by the articles. Moreover, these are
involuntary processes as they are not Agent-controlled, and these processes are uncountable.
The examples below show non-absolute happening nominalizations:
(47) This optimistic, even celebratory, outlook on the expected impacts of global
warming on the High North-which is warming faster than any place on Earth- runs counter to
what most scientists and environmentalists say is unfolding there. (Susan Moran, As The
Earth Warms, The Lure Of The Arctic’s Natural Resources Grows, 1 January 2013)
(48) But that demarcation would exclude a large swath of Greenland and ice-covered
stretches of Canada. (Susan Moran, As The Earth Warms, The Lure Of The Arctic’s Natural
Resources Grows, 1 January 2013)
These examples illustrate that such article as the and the pronoun that present nonabsolute nominalizations which determine nouns that are countable.
The relative frequency of absolute happening nominalizations and non-absolute
happening nominalizations is seen in the figure below:
16%
Absolute happening
nominalizations
Non-absolute happening
nominalizations
84%
Figure 4. The relative frequency of absolute happening nominalizations and nonabsolute happening nominalizations
The figure above illustrates that non-absolute happening nominalizations dominated.
They composed 84 per cent (172 tokens of 205 examples of happening nominalizations),
while absolute nominalizations accounted only for 16 per cent (33 tokens of 205 examples of
happening nominalizations).
32
3.5 Mental nominalizations
Mental processes are very important as they describe such processes of feeling, thinking
and perceiving. Halliday (1985:107) categorized the three subtypes as processes of
perception, cognition, and affection. The process of perception is understood as receiving the
perception of something through five senses, i.e. sight, touch, taste, smell, and hearing.
Valeika postulates that, “Perception is an involuntary state which cannot be controlled or
manipulated by the perceiver. The perceiver in fact receives or is affected by the sensations”
(1998:41). That is the reason why the process is presented by the verbs of physical perception,
e.g. see, taste, smell, hear, feel, etc. The other subtype of mental nominalizations is called the
process of cognition which is actually the process of knowing. This process is expressed by
the stative verbs: believe, doubt, guess, know, recognize, forget, mean, remember, understand,
think, etc. The process of affection which means showing feelings is realized by the verbs:
like, love, dislike, hate, enjoy, please, delight, distress, detest, want, etc. To quote Halliday
(1976:164), “mental process clauses are characterized by their being associated (1) with
different participant functions and (2) with different circumstantial elements from action
clauses”. The participant in mental process is called the Senser, or the Recipient
Experiencer who likes, knows, perceives, etc. Usually, there is a second participant known as
the Phenomenon which is perceived, know, liked, etc. (Sušinskienė, 2006:68)
3.5.1 The semantic features of mental nominalizations
In the corpus under investigation, mental nominalizations were derived from the three
subtypes of mental process: perceptive nominalizations (e.g. feeling, observation, glance,
etc.), cognitive nominalizations (e.g. remembrance, understanding, consideration, assumption,
etc.), and affectivity nominalizations (e.g. ignorance, tolerance, approval, dislike, etc.). Also,
mental verb-based nominalizations expressed perfective or imperfective process.
Perceptive nominalizations:
(49) The research, presented from several North American universities and supported
by the likes of NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and other
institutions, doesn’t make a call on whether the ongoing drought in the Midwest is tied to the
same forces that fueled the 2000-2004 drought. (Clay Dillow, The 2000-2004 North American
Drought Was The Worst In 800 Years, 30 June 2012)
(50) Like many other towns, Joplin’s policy is to sound a three-minute siren when a
storm with winds stronger than 75 mph is approaching town, regardless of whether an NWS
agency has issued a watch or warning. (Seth Fletcher, Did Global Warming Destroy My
Hometown?, 19 January 2012)
33
The samples above present perceptive nominalizations which are perfective as they
show the result of the accomplishment. Such nominalizations as a call and a watch are the
accomplished results of calling and watching processes.
Cognitive nominalizations:
(51) In displays on water and weather I could find no consideration of climate changethe defining natural-science challenge of our time. (Colin Lecher, Dallas’s New $185 Million
Science Museum Looks Ahhhh-mazing, 12 February 2013)
(52) It’s not in doubt that global warming is changing the planet for the worse, but it’s
difficult to identify which, if any, specific weather events we can definitively link to it. (Colin
Lecher, Are Recent Extreme Weather Events Caused By Global Warming? NASA Scientis
Says Yes, 7 August 2012)
These instances above are cognitive nominalizations which are created of stative verbs
such as to consider-consideration, to doubt-a doubt. Moreover, they also express a continuing
process and are perceived as imperfective nominalizations, because they show an activity that
are continuous.
Affectivity nominalizations:
(53) For all the concern among scientists, environmentalists and others about how
melting ice in the Artic could wreak havoc on local ecosystems, the loudest message about
climate change among politicians and energy industry officials who spoke at the Artic
Frontiers conference in Tromso recently could be summed up as “Bring it on!”. (Susan
Moran, As The Earth Warms, The Lure Of The Arctic’s Natural Resources Grows, 1 February
2013)
(54) “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid
the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms,” he
said in his inaugural address in January. (Shaunacy Ferro, Obama’s Finally Serious About
Climate Change, 13 February 2013)
These samples represent affectivity nominalizations because they express the feelings.
Also these examples of mental nominalizations are imperfective (i.e. denoting a continuing
process of activity).
The relative frequency of perceptive mental nominalizations, cognitive mental
nominalizations and affectivity mental nominalizations is given in the Figure below:
34
29%
37%
Perceptive mental
nominalizations
Cognitive mental
nominalizations
Activity mental
nominalizations
34%
Figure 5. The relative frequency of perceptive mental nominalizations, cognitive
mental nominalizations and affectivity mental nominalizations
The frequency of mental nominalizations was much lower as compared to material and
happening. Only 38 examples of mental nominalizations were found in the corpus of 700
examples of all verb-based nominalizations. Activity nominalizations and cognitive
nominalizations were the most common. They accounted respectively for 37 per cent (14
tokens) and 34 per cent (13 tokens). Perceptive mental nominalizations accounted for 29 per
cent (11 tokens).
The figure above illustrates the frequency of perfective mental nominalizations and
imperfective mental nominalizations.
26%
Perfective mental
nominalizations
Imperfective mental
nominalizations
74%
Figure 6. The relative frequency of perfective mental nominalizations and
imperfective mental nominalizations
As we can see from the figure above, imperfective mental nominalizations dominated as
they accounted for 74 per cent (28 tokens). Perfective mental nominalizations accounted only
for 26 per cents (10 tokens).
3.5.2 The structural features of mental nominalizations
Mental nominalizations are similar to material and happening nominalizations as they
are also used in two forms: absolute and non-absolute. Consider:
35
(55) Researchers don’t know yet if this will contribute to sea levels rising in Greenland,
but if it happens again in the next few years, that could threaten the stability of the ice sheet,
which would mean major cause for concern. (Damon Tabor, Strategies For A Changing
Planet: If All Else Fails…, 12 June 2012)
This is the sample of absolute nominalization as there are no articles that could
determine the nominalization concern.
(56) That’s interesting, but perhaps more intriguing is the idea that this theory could
aid in our understanding of where global warming originates and where it is going. (Clay
Dillow, Global Warming Could Be Linked To The Number Of Exploding Stars In The Sky, 6
September 2012)
(57) When a large predator loses its instinctive fear of humans, after all, that animal
becomes more likely to attack. (John Mahoney, Why Wild Animals Are Moving Into Cities,
And What To Do About It, 19 December 2012)
These instances above are non-absolute nominalizations as they are marked by
pronouns our and its. Consider:
The relative frequency of absolute mental nominalizations and non-absolute mental
nominalizations is shown in the Figure 7 below:
32%
Absolute mental
nominalizations
Non-absolute mental
nominalizations
68%
Figure 7. The relative frequency of absolute mental nominalizations and nonabsolute mental nominalizations
Figure 7 reveals that absolute mental nominalizations were more frequent than nonabsolute mental nominalizations. They accounted respectively for
68 per cent (26 tokens)
and 32 per cent (12 tokens).
3.6 Verbal nominalizations
Verbal process nominalizations are those which denote the processes of saying and
communicating and consists of such verbs as tell, announce, declare, ask, report, inquire,
suggest, mention, state, etc. Halliday noted that, “verbalization clauses differ from the others
36
in that they accept only reports, not facts, as ‘processed’ phenomena: naturally, since they are
‘reporting clauses’ (1976:167). Typically, a verbal process contains three participants: the
Sayer, the Recipient, and the Verbiage.
3.6.1 The semantic features of verbal nominalizations
Verbal nominalizations occur as perfective nominalizations presenting the result of the
process. Consider:
(58) After a cursory discussion of our impressions of the damage- “Can you believe
this?”. (Seth Fletcher, Did Global Warming Destroy My Hometown?, 19 January 2012)
(59)“No, not really”- conversation turned to a reunion-style catching up. (Seth
Fletcher, Did Global Warming Destroy My Hometown?, 19 January 2012)
(60) In Nevada, for example, bear- proofing garbage cans and dumpsters has helped
decrease complaints by two thirds since 2008. (John Mahoney, Why Wild Animals Are
Moving Into Cities, And What To Do About It, 19 December 2012)
These samples above reveal the result of an action which is perceived as an achievement
(i.e. discussion, conversation, complaints). These nominalizations are perfective in meaning
as they present the result of the achieved action which has no continuity.
Also, verbal nominalizations occur as imperfective showing the action. For example:
(61) But that also led to an awkward moment when CNN anchor Deb Feyerick tried to
segue into talking about a near-Earth asteroid that’s expected to fly relatively close to Earth
later this week by asking: What’s coming our way? Is this the effect of, perhaps, global
warming? (Colin Lecher, CNN Anchor Wonders To Bill Nye: Is A Near-Earth Asteroid The
Effect Of Global Warming?, 11 February 2013)
In this instance we can see that nominalization talking reveals a continuing action of
activity which still progresses.
The relative frequency of perfective verbal nominalizations and imperfective verbal
nominalizations is given in the Figure 8:
45%
55%
Perfective verbal
nominalizations
Imperfective verbal
nominalizations
Figure 8. The relative frequency of perfective verbal nominalizations and
imperfective verbal nominalizations
37
In the corpus of 700 samples of verb-based nominalizations, the verbal nominalizations
amounted only for 29 examples. In the figure above we can that imperfective verbal
nominalizations were more common than perfective nominalizations. They accounted
respectively for 55 per cent (16 tokens) and 45 per cent (13 tokens).
3.6.2 The structural features of verbal nominalizations
Processes of saying and communicating were used in the corpus as absolute and nonabsolute. Also, verbal nominalizations are associated with the Sayer and the Verbiage.
Consider absolute nominalizations:
(62) Legal, political, economic, social and environmental considerations aside, the plan
is highly complex and, if history is any guide, would precipitate more problems than it solved.
(Elizabeth Royte, Strategies For A Changing Planet: Water, 12 June 2012)
This instance reveals the process of communicating as is considered to be absolute
verbal nominalization because there are no determine articles. Consider the non-absolute
examples below:
(63) But a debate persists about why this is so, and whether it’s because of temperature
itself or because of indirect results, like food abundance and conservation of heat energy.
(Rebecca Boyle, Hot Weather Makes Mammals Smaller, So Will Global Warming Make Us
Shrink, 23 February 2012)
(64) But the explanation-that pulling water from the ground and putting it into the
oceans might contribute to rising sea levels-is just simple enough seem credible, no? (Clay
Dillow, Pumping Well Water Out Of The Ground May Be A Culprit In Rising Sea Levels, 23
May 2012)
(65) In Joplin, a common explanation for abnormal weather is “It’s all cyclical”.
(Seth Fletcher, Did Global Warming Destroy My Hometown?, 19 January 2012)
These instances reveal the communicating and the saying processes and they are marked
by articles which disclose that these verbal nominalizations are non-absolute.
The relative frequency of absolute verbal nominalizations and non-absolute verbal
nominalizations is shown in the figure below:
38
41%
Absolute verbal
nominalizations
Non-absolute verbal
nominalizatiosn
59%
Figure 9. The relative frequency of absolute verbal nominalizations and nonabsolute verbal nominalizations
This figure discloses that non-absolute verbal nominalizations were more commonly
used than absolute verbal nominalizations. They accounted respectively for 59 per cent (17
tokens) and 41 per cent (12 tokens).
3.7 Relational nominalizations
Relational nominalizations denote the process of ‘being’. Valeika and Buitkienė
(2006:83) declared that generally relational process refers to the processes which express the
notion of being something, having something and being somewhere. According to
Sušinskienė (2006:77), relational process sentences fall in three categories:
1) Intensive (or Attributive) ‘x is a’ (e.g. Mary is nice);
2) Possessive ‘x has a’ (e.g. John has a car);
3) Circumstantial ‘x is at a’ (e.g. Mary and John are in the room);
Also relational processes constitute two different modes (Halliday, 1985:112; LeckieTarry, 1995:112):
1) Attributive ‘a is an attribute of x’ (e.g. This boy is a fabulous piano player).
2) Identifying ‘a is the identity of x’ (e.g. The girl in the room is my daughter);
The process of rational propositions is revealed by semi-notional verbs such as be,
become, have, etc. These verbs are obligatory followed by adjectives or nouns functioning as
Attributes. Moreover, such verbs resist the process of non-gerundive nominalization, e.g. The
country is strong turns into The being strong of the country; The country has oil turns into The
country having oil (Sušinskienė, 2006:78).
The participant of the Attributive sub-type of relational nominalizations is called the
Carrier and the property is called the Attribute. Attributive propositions are not reversible
while nominalizations of Identifying sub-type are reversible. There are two participants of
Identifying sub-type: a Token (an entity which is being described) and a Value (an entity
39
which is defined) (Halliday, 1985:115). Even though relational processes are perceived as
processes of ‘being’, there are other verbs than ‘be’ that identify the processes, such as equal,
add up to, make, come out at, signify, mean, define, spell, indicate, express, suggest, act as,
symbolize, play (a role), represent, stand for, refer to, etc. (Ibid., 116). Attribute processes
are expressed by such verbs as be, appear, get, grow, continue, keep, turn, hold, prove, turn
out, rank, remain, run, fall, stand, go, etc.
3.7.1 The semantic features of relational nominalizations
Relational verb-based nominalizations may which occurred in the corpus expresses a
stative (imperfective) process. For example:
(66) It would require unprecedented cooperation among China, the European Union
and U.S. (Damon Tabor, Strategies For A Changing Planet: If All Else Fails…,12 June 2012)
This instance reveals a stative process and discloses an imperfective nominalization
because it is a progressive action which has an unlimited duration.
Only 4 relational nominalizations were found in the corpus of 700 nominalizations. All
of them were imperfective relational nominalizations.
3.7.2 The structural features of relational nominalizations
Relational nominalizations occurred in the corpus as non-absolute. Consider:
(67) But if it’s impossible to prove causation, it’s easy to see a disturbing correlation.
(Seth Fletcher, Did Global Warming Destroy My Hometown, 19 January 2012)
This instance reveals a non-absolute nominalization as there is article a which marks the
noun.
Only 4 relational nominalizations were found in the corpus of 700 nominalizations. All
of them were non-absolute relational nominalizations.
3.8 Existential nominalizations
As Thompson points (1997:101), existential processes are defined in negative terms,
“essentially it expresses the mere existence of any entity without predicating anything else of
it”. It could be said that existential nominalizations denote the existence of somebody or
something.
As Sušinskienė (2006:83) observes, verb-based nominalizations describing the
existential process typically involve the presentative There, which is often followed by such
verbs as be, exist, stand, lie, stretch, hang, remain, occur, follow, appear, arise, emerge, loom
and a nominal group. However, it should be stressed that There is not a participant, it only
40
functions as formal Subject and has a function of presentative (Ibid.). Existential clauses have
the Existent which is only one obligatory participant which may be human or non-human.
Existential nominalizations found in the corpus were mostly based on presentative
existential propositions, i.e. propositions based on such verbs as exist, appear, occur.
3.8.1 The semantic features of existential nominalizations
Only two types of existential nominalizations were found in the corpus: stative and
dynamic. Consider:
(68) It’s been a while since he tried to count them all, but Stan Gehrt estimates that
more than 2,000 coyotes make a comfortable living in the Chicago metropolitan area today.
(John Mahoney, Why Wild Animals Are Moving Into Cities And what To Do About It, 19
December 2012)
The example above is an imperfective nominalization because it describes a dynamic
process of an activity which still continues.
Only 3 samples of existential nominalizations were discovered in the corpus of 700
nominalizations. All the examples are imperfective existential nominalizations.
3.8.2 The structural features of existential nominalizations
Existential nominalizations were used in two forms: absolute and non-absolute.
Consider:
(69) Existence finally confirmed of hypothetical particle that could help cool the planet.
(Clay Dillow, Existence Finally Confirmed Of Hypothetical Particle That Could Help Cool
The Planet, 12 January 2012)
This sample above is an absolute existential nominalization as it has no marking article,
whereas the sample below is a non-absolute existential nominalization which has a marking
article the. Consider:
(70) As we enter the high season of electoral politics, you’re going to hear things about
the existence of global warming that may seem a bit dubious--that it doesn’t exist, that it
exists and George W. Bush invented it, that cataclysmic climate change has already occurred
and we are all doomed, that climate change is the result of the failed stimulus, etc. (Clay
Dillow, Global Warming Could Be Linked To The Number Of Exploding Stars In The Sky, 6
September 2012)
The relative frequency of absolute existential nominalizations and non-absolute
existential nominalizations is given in Figure:
41
33%
Absolute existential
nominalizations
Non- absolute existential
nominalizations
67%
Figure 10. The relative frequency of absolute existential nominalizations and nonabsolute existential nominalizations
Figure 10 illustrate that absolute existential nominalizations accounted for 33 per cent
(1 token). Meantime, non-absolute existential nominalizations were more frequently used and
accounted for 67 per cent (2 tokens).
To conclude this chapter, we could say that material nominalizations were the most
common in the corpus of 700 examples because it accounted for 421. Happening
nominalizations were also frequently used, they composed 205 examples. Mental and verbal
nominalizations were less frequent, they accounted respectively for 38 and 29 examples. The
least commonly used nominalizations were relational (4 examples) and existential (3
examples). A tendency occurred that according to the semantic feature of nominalizations,
imperfective nominalizations were more often used than perfective nominalizations. Based on
the structural feature of nominalizations, non-absolute nominalizations dominated in the
corpus, while absolute nominalizations were less frequent.
42
CONCLUSIONS
Nominalization is a unique phenomenon which plays an important role in science
popular texts. When talking about a discourse it is important to mentions that a text has both:
cohesion and coherence which unites the text in one meaningful unit. Here nominalization
comes in view as it helps not only to maintain the text concisely but also aids in uniting
different ideas.
The conclusions presented below are the confirmation of the objectives formulated on
page 3: 1) To present the theoretical material concerning the features of nominalization; 2) To
discuss cohesion and coherence because nominalizations play an important role as being
lexico-grammatical cohesive device in science popular texts; and 3) To analyse the usage of
verb-based nominalizations in science popular texts and to interpret their semantic and
structural features. Finally, the following conclusions have been made:
1)
The analysis of the theory discloses the concept of nominalization which is a
process of creating nouns from other word classes (i.e. verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc.).
Moreover, it was revealed that the biggest source of nominalizations is created from verbs
which are distinguished by a) morphologically identical with agnate verb (e.g. haul, estimate,
change); b) nominalizations which have no agnate verb, but which nevertheless designate a
process (e.g. occasion, preference, reading), c) nominalizations which have an agnate verb,
but are not morphologically identical. Also the discussed theory expressed the idea that
nominalizations may also be perceived as the form of grammatical metaphor. When the
nominalizations are treated as grammatical metaphors they transform the realization of the
process, attribute, circumstance and situation into the realization of being a thing. It was found
out that according to their denoting kind of process nominalizations are categorized into: 1)
material, 2) happening, 3) mental, 4) verbal, 5) relational and 6) existential.
2)
When talking about nominalizations cohesion and coherence should be borne in
mind because they help to maintain the texture of the discourse. Coherence of a text is defined
as a logico-semantic and informational-pragmatic integration, whereas cohesion of a text is
actually the realization of the coherence by applying linguistic means. And nominalization is
one of lexico-grammatical cohesive devices which plays an important role in providing the
united meaning of the text and creating the condensation of information. Moreover, the
analyzed theory disclosed that nominalizations are frequently used in science popular texts.
Science popularisation texts are scientific texts applied for an ordinary reader and the
scientific language is transformed into more easily understandable by applying various
expressive means. The main idea of science popular texts is to provoke an intellectual and
43
evaluative response in the reader. Nominalizations are used in science popularisation
discourse as a cohesive device which condenses information and makes the text more
economical.
3)
The usage of 700 examples of verb-based nominalizations in science popular
texts was analysed. The examples of verb-based nominalizations were found in the corpus of
35 articles concentrating on the topic global warming. The most common suffixes used in
order to form verb-based nominalizations were the following: -ance/-ence, -er/-or, -ery, -ing,
-ion/-sion/-tion/-ation, -ment, -sis, -ure, -th. Even though the suffixes -al and -age are used to
form nominalizations, there were no examples found in the corpus. Also, zero derivation was
commonly used to create verb-based nominalizations. In addition, verb-based nominalizations
that denoted processes were distinguished into: material, happening, mental, verbal,
relational and existential. In the corpus the most frequently used were material and happening
nominalizations. Material nominalizations composed 421 examples, while happening
nominalizations 205 examples. Mental and verbal nominalizations were not so common.
Respectively, there were found 38 and 29 examples of them. The least frequent process
nominalizations were relational only 4 examples found and existential only 3 examples. Also,
their semantic and structural features were discussed. The semantic aspects showed that
imperfective verb-based nominalizations (i.e. expressing activity) rather than perfective verbbased nominalizations (expressing the result) dominated in science popular texts. Moreover,
structural features of verb-based nominalizations revealed that non-absolute nominalizations
(i.e. determined by the article) were more frequently used than absolute nominalizations (i.e.
not determined by the article).
In conclusion, it could be said that verb-based nominalizations are unique devices that
help to maintain the text coherent and cohesive. Also, it aids in providing economy to the text
as it helps to condense information. Finally, having analyzed semantic and structural features
of verb-nominalization it can be noted that nominalization should be brought forward in
future analysis of linguistic research in other genres of language.
44
REFERENCES
1. Adams, V., 1973. An Introduction to Modern English Word-formation. London:
Longman.
2. Banks, D., 2003. The Evolution of Grammatical Metaphor in Scientific Writing.
Universite’ de Bretague Occidentale: John Benjamins.
3. Beaugrande, R., and Dressler, W., 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London:
Longman.
4. Biber, D. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
5. Bussman, H., 2006. Routldge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London and New
York: Routledge.
6. Calsamiglia, H., 2003. Popularization Discourse. Discourse Studies. 5 (2):139-146.
7. Chomsky, N., 1970. Remarks on Nominalizations. In: Jacobs, R.A. and Rosenbaum, P.S.,
eds. Readings in Transformational Grammar. Waltham: Ginn & Company. 184-221.
8. Chomsky, N., 1980. Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. Third printing.
Monton Publishers: The Hague, The Netherlands
9. Cruse, W. J., 1973. Some Thoughts on Agentivity. Journal of Linguistics, 9:11-23.
10. Crystal, D., 2003. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. United Kingdom: Blackwell
Publishing.
11. Downing, A. & Locke, P., 1992. A University Course in English Grammar. London:
Prentice Hall, Inc.
12. Duffley, P. J., 2000. Gerung Versus Infinitive as Complement of Transitive Verbs in
English. Journal of English Linguistics. 28 (3):221-248.
13. Eggins, S., 2004. Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics: 2nd Edition. Great
Britain: MPG Book Ltd.
14. Fairclough, F., 2003. Analysing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research. London
& New York: Routledge.
15. Fillmore, C. J., 1968. The Case for Case. E. Bach and R. T. Horns (eds). Universals in
Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.1-88.
16. Halliday, M. A. K., 1976. System and Function in Language. Selected Papers. Ed.by G.
Kress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Halliday, M. A. K., 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
18. Halliday, M. A. K., 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
45
19. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R., 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
20. Halliday, M. A. K., 2004. The Language of Science. London: Mpg Books Ltd.
21. Hathaway, B., 1967. A Transformational Syntax. The Grammar of Modern American
English. New York: The Ronal Press Company.
22. Heyvaert, L., 2003. A Cognitive-Function Approach to Nominalization in English. Berlin;
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
23. Lakoff, G., 1970. Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
24. Leckie-Tarry, H., 1995. Language and Context. A Functional Linguistic Theory of
Register. London: Pinter.
25. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 2008. Available from:
http://www.ldoceonline.com/. [Accessed on 4 January, 2013]
26. MacArthur, T., 1992. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
27. Mackenzie, J. L., 1996. English Nominalizations in the Layered Model of the Sentence. In
B. Devriendt, L. Goossens and J. van der Auwera (eds). Complex structures: a
functionalist perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 325-355.
28. Marchand, H., 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation.
In: Balteiro, I., 2007. A Contribution to the Study of Conversion in English. Germany:
Waxmann, p. 37.
29. Martin, J. R., 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
30. Martin, J. R., 2001. Cohesion and Texture. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
31. Mathesius, V., 1975. A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General
Linguistic Basis. Prague: Academia.
32. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., 1995. Lexico-grammatical Cartography: English Systems.
Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.
33. McCarthy, M., and Carter, R., 1994. Language as Discourse: Perspective for Language
Teaching. New York: Longman.
34. Mosenthal, J. M. and Tierney, R. J., 1984. Cohesion: Problems with Talking about Texts
Reading Research Quarterly. Reading Research Quarterly.19 (2).
35. Mourelatos, A. P. D., 1978. Events, Processes, and States. Linguistics and Philosophy.
2:415-432.
36. Myers, G., 1989. The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles. Applied Linguistics.
10:1-35.
46
37. Myers, G., 1990a. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Science. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
38. Myers, G., 1990b. Making a Discovery: Narratives of Split Genes. C. Nash (ed.).
Narrative in Culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
39. Myers, G., 1991. Lexical Cohesion and Specialized Knowledge in Science and Popular
Science Texts. Discourse Processes. 14:1-26.
40. Parkinson, J., and Adendorff, R., 2004. The Use of Popular Science Articles in Teaching
Scientific Literacy. English for Specific Purposes. 23(4):379-396.
41. Perez, M., C. 2007. Transitivity in Translating. The Interdependence of Texture and
Context. Bern: Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers. Available from:
http://books.google.com/ [Accessed on 18 February, 2013].
42. Petrėnienė, O., 2011. Specifics of Science Popularisation Text Language: Summary of
Doctoral Dissertation. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press.
43. Proposition. Available from
http://www01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAProposition.htm.
[Accessed on 29 March, 2013].
44. Ravelli, L. J., 1988. Grammatical Metaphor: an Initial Analysis. In: Steiner, E.W. and
Veltman, R., eds. Pragmatics, Discourse and Text: Some Systematically-Inspired
Approaches. London: Pinter Publishers. 133-147.
45. Ravelli, L. J., 1999. Metaphor, Mode and Complexity. An Exploration of Co-varying
patterns. Monographs in Systemic Linguistics. Nottingham: Department of English and
Media Studies. Nottingham Trent University.
46. Stockwell, P., 2009. Texture. A Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading. Edinburgh University
Press Ltd. Available from: http://books.google.com/ [Accessed on 23 February, 2013].
47. Sušinskienė, S., 2006. Verb-based nominalizations in English science and discourse
(semantic, syntactic and textual aspects). Vilnius.
48. Sušinskienė, S., 2008. Nominalization as Explicit/Implicit Cohesion Devices in English
Political Texts. Žmogus kalbos erdvėje: mokslinių straipsnių rinkinys. 5(2):113-119.
49. Sušinskienė, S., 2009. Nominalization as a Micro-Structural Item of English Scientific
Discourse. Respectus Philologicus. 16(21): 84-92.
50. Sušinskienė, S., 2010. Nominalization as a Cohesive Device in British Newspaper
Editorials. Filologija: mokslo darbai. 15:142-150.
51. Sušinskienė, S., 2012. Nominalization as a Lexico-grammatical Cohesive Device in
Science Popular Texts. Filologija. 17(17):133-144.
47
52. Swales, J., 1990. Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
53. Tavernier, M., 2002. Systemic-Functional Linguistics and the Notion of Gramatical
Metaphor. A Theoretical Study and a Proposal for as Semiotic-Functional Integrative
Model. PhD Dissertation, University of Ghent.
54. Thompson, G., 1997. Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
55. Trask, R. L., 2005. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. Routledge Taylor &
Francis Group London and New York.
56. Valeika, L., 1985. An Introductory Course in Semantic Syntax. Vilnius: Vilnius
Pedagogical University Press.
57. Valeika, L., 1998. An Introductory Course in Semantic Syntax. Vilnius: Vilnius University
Press.
58. Valeika, L. & Buitkienė, J., 2003. An Introductory Course in Theoretical English
Grammar. Vilnius: Vilnius Pedagogical University Press.
59. Valeika, L. & Buitkienė, J., 2006. Functional English Syntax. Vilnius: Vilnius
Pedagogical University Press.
60. Valeika, L. & Sušinskienė, S., 2012. Aspect in English and Lithuanian. Šiauliai: Šiauliai
University Press.
61. Varttala, T., 1999. Remarks on the Communication Functions of Hedging in Popular
Science Research Articles on Medicine. English for Specific Purposes.18 (2):177-200.
62. Vendler, Z., 1967. Verbs and Time, Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
63. Verikaitė, D., 1999. Formal and Functional Characteristics of Cohesive Device in the
Science Research Article in English. Vilnius Pedagogical University.
SOURCES
The following articles were taken from English magazine - Popular science. Available
at: http://www.popsci.com/
1. Human CO2 Emissions Could Avert the Next Ice Age, Study Says. By Rebecca Boyle.
Posted 01.08.2012
2. Existence Finally Confirmed of Hypothetical Particle That Could Help Cool the Planet.
By Clay Dillow. Posted 01.12.2012
3. Did Global Warming Destroy My Hometown? By Seth Fletcher. Posted 01.19.2012
48
4. Hot Weather Makes Mammals Smaller, So Will Global Warming Make Us Shrink? By
Rebecca Boyle. Posted 02.23.2012
5. Earth's Clouds Are Getting Lower, Which Could Be a Good Thing. By Rebecca Boyle.
Posted 02.23.2012
6. Could Climate Change Make Mount Everest Unclimbable? By Rebecca Boyle. Posted
02.28.2012
7. Storm Watch: Driven By Warm Air, Massive Tornado Outbreak Forecast for Friday. By
Rebecca Boyle. Posted 03.01.2012
8. Pumping Well Water Out of the Ground May Be a Culprit in Rising Sea Levels. By Clay
Dillow. Posted 05.23.2012
9. Sea Level Rising Rapidly on Both Coasts, Could Even Flood San Francisco Airport in a
Decade. By Colin Lecher. Posted 06.25.2012
10. Strategies for a Changing Planet: If All Else Fails...By Damon Tabor. Posted 07.12.2012
11. Strategies for a Changing Planet: Water. By Elizabeth Royte. Posted 07.12.2012
12. Geoengineers Will Release Tons of Sun-Reflecting Chemicals Into the Air Above New
Mexico. By Colin Lecher. Posted 07.18.2012
13. India to Predict Monsoon Rains With Supercomputer Accuracy. By Clay Dillow. Posted
07.24.2012
14. In Record Summer Heat, 97 Percent of Greenland's Surface Ice Turns to Slush. By Colin
Lecher. Posted 07.25.2012
15. The 2000-2004 North American Drought was the Worst in 800 Years. By Clay Dillow.
Posted 07.30.2012
16. Building Artificial Islands That Rise With the Sea. By Katharine Gammon. Posted
08.06.2012
17. Are Recent Extreme Weather Events Caused By Global Warming? NASA Scientist Says
Yes. By Colin Lecher. Posted 08.07.2012
18. Global Warming Could Be Linked to the Number of Exploding Stars in the Sky. By Clay
Dillow. Posted 09.06.2012
19. Rogue Geoengineer Dumps 100 Tons Of Iron Off Canada's West Coast. By Clay Dillow.
Posted 10.17.2012
20. A Satellite View Of Glacial Melting. By Krislyn Placide. Posted 10.22.2012
21. Scientists Find Clearest Evidence Yet Of Monumental Polar Ice Melt. By Rebecca Boyle.
Posted 11.29.2012
22. Which Cuddly Land Mammals Are Most In Danger From Climate Change? By Clay
Dillow. Posted 12.13.2012
49
23. Why Wild Animals Are Moving Into Cities, And What To Do About It. By John Mahoney.
Posted 12.19.2012
24. Politics Is Most Important Factor For Climate Future, Study Finds. By Colin Lecher.
Posted 01.04.2013
25. Is Climate Change Self-Correcting? Australia's Heatwave Stops Gasoline Sales. By
Shaunacy Ferro. Posted 01.11.2013
26. 5 Creatures That Could Actually Be Helped By A Warming World. By Rebecca Boyle.
Posted 01.14.2013
27. The Weather Outside Today Affects Your Stance On Climate Change. By Colin Lecher.
Posted 01.24.2013
28. In An Era Of Climate Change, Where Will The Fish, And The Money, Go? By Susan
Moran Posted 01.25.2013
29. Chinese Entrepreneur Offers Canned Designer Air To Citizens Suffering From Smog. By
Clay Dillow. Posted 01.30.2013
30. As The Earth Warms, The Lure Of The Arctic's Natural Resources Grows. By Susan
Moran. Posted 02.01.2013
31. CNN Anchor Wonders To Bill Nye: Is A Near-Earth Asteroid The Effect Of Global
Warming? By Colin Lecher. Posted 02.11.2013
32. Dallas's New $185 Million Science Museum Looks Ahhhh-mazing. By Colin Lecher
Posted. 02.12.2013
33. Obama's Finally Serious About Climate Change. By Shaunacy Ferro. Posted 02.13.2013
34. Scientists Engineer Extreme Microorganisms To Make Fuel From Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide. By Colin Lecher. Posted 03.27.2013
35. This Is The Obama Administration's Proposal To Help Wildlife Deal With Inevitable
Climate Change. By Dan Nosowitz. Posted 03.27.2013
50